count_business_daysCount Turkish business days between two dates, inclusive, excluding weekends and public holidays.
Count Turkish business days after start up to and including end (weekends and full-day public holidays excluded).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | Yes | ||
| start | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral detail the annotations cannot: the Turkish holiday calendar and the exclusion rules (weekends plus full-day holidays only, implying half-days are counted). It stops short of stating the return type or what happens if start is after end.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, front-loaded with the operation and scoped by the parenthetical exclusions. No filler, and the boundary conditions are stated before the qualifying details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter pure calculation with no output schema, the description covers calendar scope, boundaries, and exclusion rules. The main remaining gap is that the return value (an integer count) and error behavior for an inverted range are never stated.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the two parameters are self-describing dates constrained by a pattern. The description does add the important boundary semantics ('after start up to and including end'), which the schema cannot express, though it omits the expected YYYY-MM-DD format and ordering constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
A specific verb ('Count') plus a specific resource ('Turkish business days'), with the calendar scope named. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling add_business_days that an agent might confuse it with, so sibling differentiation is only implicit in the verb.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the calculation it performs, but the description never states when to prefer it over add_business_days or get_public_holidays, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer the choice from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.